Apple will expose the worst of predatory surveillance by Facebook, Amazon and Google with new privacy features
While wrong is wrong regardless of the perpetrator, when it comes to gargantuan tech behemoths, a company with a clearly defined mission such as Apple or Tesla are in a different category than Amazon, Facebook and Google.
While Tesla’s stated mission is to “accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy” and Apple’s original mission statement, written by Steve Jobs was “to make a contribution to the world by making tools for the mind that advance humankind”, predatory vultures hide behind ridiculous slogans like “aim to be Earth’s most customer centric company” (while decimating partners and competitors by any means necessary) and “don’t be evil” (don’t get caught) and “to give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together” (…all while stealing data for profit from every person on earth).
Click to See “Steve Jobs“ and to help Lynxotic and Independent Bookstores. Also Available on Amazon.
It’s just not the same – particularly as Steve Jobs, while at Apple, pushed himself and his company to invent and build many powerful examples of “tools for the mind” and Elon Musk’s Tesla brought the electric car back from the dead (after it was nearly snuffed out by big oil) and is making incredible headway in revolutionizing battery and solar technology, all with a view to literally save the planet from a climate catastrophe.
Bezos? Became the richest living human via the destruction of millions of small business and jobs all while undercutting competitors by selling virtually anything he got his hands on at a significant loss; simply to cause the demise of any competitor or partner that might threaten his rise to idiotically massive personal wealth.
Zuckerberg? Pioneered ways to suck data from virtually every human with a view to monetizing every living soul exclusively for himself and his company. Illustration? Dividing Facebook’s market cap by the number of employees it has yields the sum of $14,906,500.00 per employee. Macy’s? That’d be $16,829. (Thanks to Scott Galloway for the numbers)
Google merely owns (91.75% as of June 2020) the search entryway to all web sites. It decides if you should or should not find them. If it can boost profits by hiding one and featuring another, either through “paid search” or by pointing you toward its own properties while hiding competitors from you, it will do exactly that. Ask the European Union’s anti-trust investigators. For them, this company is a convicted law breaker.
Announced at WWDC 2020, Apple is adding serious features to its various new operating systems. One big feature in Safari is the ability to track, and block as desired, all manner of data intrusions. These are not only identified, but shown and tracked and analyzed with a kind of professional dashboard, showing just how invasive and persistent these invisible spies are.
Apple is big, with more than 1.4 billion devices. Starting in around 2021 they will all be able to identify and block data surveillance by Amazon (the largest of all spies), Google and Facebook, among others. Thanks that’s not a big deal? Think again.
…the overall stance being taken regarding online tracking and surveillance should be seen for what it is: the first step to correcting the mistake of history that allowed the internet to be kidnapped and held hostage by a handful of companies that pretend to be “free” or “customer obsessed” while they are, in fact, Robber Barons that make the Standard Oil monopoly look like Santa Claus.
– D.L.
Tracking the Trackers will Change Your Life
Tracking the trackers is a clear and aggressive privacy stance, taken by the one company among the big four, that does not have a huge stake in you being the victim of online surveillance and tracking.
Not to say that Apple is blameless. Many are complaining about its fee structure for software sold by third parties via the app stores. While this issue is certainly a valid one, the overall stance being taken regarding online tracking and surveillance should be seen for what it is: the first step to correcting the mistake of history that allowed the internet to be kidnapped and held hostage by a handful of companies that pretend to be “free” or “customer obsessed” while they are, in fact, Robber Barons that make the Standard Oil monopoly look like Santa Claus.
Subscribe to our newsletter for all the latest updates directly to your inBox.
A building chorus of dissenting voices from well heeled and carefully researched corporate ad buyers
Zuckerberg faces the music (collage / Lynxotic)
The Facebook ad boycott has been going on for several weeks now, as more and more companies are abstaining from promoting content on the social media website until it makes greater amends to eliminate hate speech on its platform. At first, many expected that the boycott would not be enough to spark real change. After all, only about a hundred companies are engaged in it, and Facebook hosts over 8 million advertisers. However, now that a few key players have joined the movement, Facebook is facing palpable financial and PR consequences, heralding an indirect response.
Companies started to boycott ads on Facebook earlier this month, as civil rights groups such as the NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League, Sleeping Giants, Color Of Change, Free Press and Common Sense criticized the site for providing a platform for racist and bigoted content. These groups were particularly critical of Facebook failing to censor President Trump‘s inflammatory post regarding the Black Lives Matter protests following George Floyd’s death. In the post, Trump stated, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” endorsing a hateful rhetoric riddled with dark precedents.
Facebook was defensive of allowing Trump’s post go unedited at first, with CEO Mark Zuckerberg playing the free-speech card that has kept Facebook relatively unaccountable in the past for the mounds of unsavory content plastered on the site.
Now, however, Facebook is waking up to a significant hit to the wallet.
Major ad contributors have joined the boycott against Facebook including Verizon, Coca-Cola, Unilever, and dozens upon dozens more, with most making a statement that they will abstain from advertising on Facebook through the summer or until the site changes its methods. It is part of a movement titled “Stop Hate For Profit,” targeted at companies that make money off of bigotry.
Money matters, apparently, particularly big, big sums
As mentioned above, the companies who have joined the movement are but a drop in Facebook’s ocean of advertisers. Nevertheless, amidst the boycott and all of the negative PR Facebook has acquired as a result, the site’s stock price has dropped significantly. On Friday, June 26th, its stock went down more than 8%, representing a loss $56 billion in market value for the company. Even for a company like Facebook, that is not exactly chump-change.
Non-coincidentally, later that same day, Zuckerberg released a statement outlining Facebook’s plans to be more proactive about censoring content on the website. In a thirteen minute video and accompanying post, the CEO explained that going forward, Facebook will be making more efforts to ensure that all users feel safe on the website. This includes prohibiting ads that target or demean certain demographics, making it more apparent when content is or is not deemed “newsworthy,” and increasing security for content related to the upcoming election, flagging hoax videos and removing the spread of misinformation.
A long list of convictions and potential crimes is beginning to mount
The larger question exists as to why now, after facebook’s lax and predatory behaviors are well known and documented, suddenly these major advertisers have woken to the urgency of change? BLM and antitrust, along with a long list of highly critical investigative reports from major news over a period of years, might just be building into a tsunami of anti-facebook sentiment too big to ignore.
It was Facebook’s complacency with spreading misinformation during the 2016 Election—as well as the Cambridge Analytica privacy breeches— that instigated the website’s fall from grace nearly four years ago. Since then, Facebook among other big-tech labels have been the subject of greater criticism for their role in politics, culture, and public discourse.
While Zuckerberg’s latest video feels more substantial than most of his responses to criticism. It attempts to off some possible real solutions to the problems rather than just hollow suggestions or distractive rebranding techniques. Still, many are not satisfied, hoping that Facebook will focus more on removing all hateful content rather than simply flagging it, or adjusting its corporate allegiances so they stop selling data to or providing a platform for institutions that aim to disenfranchise people.
As the boycott continues, perhaps Facebook’s response will grow more progressive, but Zuck and his company continue to toe that delicate line between upholding freedom of speech and quelling unambiguously offensive content. Likewise, it will be interesting to see what the boycotters do in the coming months. Facebook is a crucial advertising platform for most of these corporations. By the end of the summer, will they start using the site again, or will they continue to hold out until greater change comes about?
To endorse the former would seem like a sellout, like the entire boycott was but a disingenuous gesture. However, to carry on with the boycott indefinitely begs the question of how much Facebook needs to adjust itself before returning to the public’s (as well as other business’) good graces.
Ultimately, the question is whether real change is finally coming; for us all to have a choice of more than a single, solitary option for our social media network (facebook), search engine (google) or eCommerce destination (amazon).
This is a tiny snippet from an upcoming exposé of the inner workings of the nightmare produced by Facebook, Google and Amazon
Isn’t it funny that the so called bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000 which resulted in a nearly 75% drop in the tech heavy NASDAQ index by March, 2000. Ultimately, among survivors and upstarts, the winner-takes-all saga led to no less than three trillion dollar companies.
If the internet is, or at lest was, a dead end for any company trying to profit, how could these few have profited so obscenely in such a short time?
Most of the answers to that question attempted for the last two decades have been blatant hero worship and “to the victors go the spoils” nonsense with hardly any media attention paid (at least until around 2016) to the deeper, and darker, story that explains this regrettable paradox.
While the truth, particularly when it comes to tech and the internet, is often maddeningly complex, hiding behind a veil of complexity is a standard technique for anyone wants to keep their billion dollar golden geese a secret, shell companies, offshore banking, derivatives and “CDOs” and the like all benefit from being opaque and complex.
And while the absolute details would take mountains of pages to explain, mainly to explain away all the contradictions, the base issues are at the same time, in many ways, insanely simple.
Fraud, Ponzi schemes, illegal monopolistic behavior, all the usual suspects are not only present but rampant and rancid like a planet sized pile of moldy cheese.
And those are the larger threads, the ones that fit into a framework of past anti-trust cases and prior greed fueled crime sprees.
The devil as they say, is always in the details. Here are a few, some general and others much more specific, that point to how we could have gotten to this absurd destination.
Google and the “hiding engine” from hell
Click to see “Goliath” and help Lynxotic and all independent bookstores
While it is lovely that Google “allows” us to find out Lucille Ball’s birthday with a single click – or the capital of Afghanistan just as easily, what if you are looking for something a little less obvious? What if the information you need is worth something? What if you need fair, honest advice or even wisdom?
You’re out of luck. Since the entire basis for this business to to charge you (or somebody, regardless) for information that is, in reality, publicly available (the internet is public after all and the information on it does not belong to google), the primary function of Google’s vaunted trillion dollar algorithm is to hide any information of value from you until they have extracted a price.
Since they are known as a “search engine” this is counterintuitive but it will make more sense as we delve into the other two “winners” of the dot-com era. Each of these three companies share this one thing in common. They are all build to exclude, hide and criminally manipulate essentially public information for the benefit of a private enterprise. k?
Facebook and the lure of “exclusive membership”
As has been well documented, to the extent of having been memorialized in a feature length hollywood film, the fast start in membership that Facebook achieved was based on two “triggers” related to exclusivity and “hiding” of information. The first was, during the initial launch at harvard and for a period of time at various other colleges and universities, a requirement for membership was “proof” that you were a student in the form of an “edu” suffixed email. This added popularity to the site as those joining felt they had not only potential access to others where they went to school, but also would not be associating with non-students, or in the extreme initial example, not socializing with non-harvard people.
Click to see “World Without Mind” and help Lynxotic and all independent bookstores
While this seems innocuous enough and a great marketing ploy, indeed it was heralded as genius by hundreds of sycophantic scribes, the next bit is where the system that exists to this day became an engine for corporate greed at the expense of virtually the entire world population.
Once you join Facebook, you are “allowed” to have contact only with “friends” that authorize you to do so. But the recommendations for “friending” those people, other than from your own laborious manual searching, are controlled by Facebooks algorithms.
This is a familiar tune. The real purpose of this structure was not to give you exclusivity or for you to benefit from the “wisdom” of the algorithm, but to block private and, in particular, business entities from coming in contact with you without first paying Facebook. In other words, using its log-in membership system and proprietary software labyrinth as a private, separate internet sphere, it was able to build the largest network of phantom tool booths the world has ever seen and now collects hundreds of billions simply because “the public” has opted-in and has no idea what an open alternative would look like or the damage that has been done by this harmless seeming “social platform”.
The real potential of networked human communications, a.k.a. the internet, is almost totally lost to history, with the surviving structure entirely based on the systems that these three giants have constructed with a view to nothing more than private, personal enrichment.
While this opinion may seem harsh, looking at the inner workings of the software and who financially benefits vs. who loses (a.k.a. everybody else) will, in time expose one of the greatest swindles ever perpetrated on the public, in this case the entire world population, or at least the population of internet users across the globe.
Amazon and the alleged layers of deceit and corruption beyond all imaginings
It is fairly common these days to hear criticism of Amazon and “worlds richest man” Bezos, which is understandable since the operation is so massive and, like any huge concern, likely to step on a few toes here and there, regardless.
Naturally there is also plenty of hero worship, particularly the insane love of “Bezonomics” and a cult of personality toward the founder and CEO for, well, stepping on the most faces of any human, other than perhaps Genghis Kahn.
Again, the real devil is in the details. It is easy to defend any criticism of the company by pointing out the “good” that it has done or continues to do and to create a “straw man” argument that the company should somehow get “credit” for those things and that they somehow offset any valid critique.
That is like saying someone who succeeded in getting elected president by bribing millions of voters should therefore be allowed to wage war or imprison anyone he likes since he has earned “credit” by doing right by those who were bribed.
There a little story, told to us by an anonymous source, who’s stories have all checked out before, that illustrates the system at work when you step onto the private property of Amazon’s web site.
Click to see “Life After Google“ and help Lynxotic and all independent bookstores
Again search is at the center of the story, as is the requirement to log in and agree to terms and conditions. This is tantamount to agreeing that you are leaving the public sphere and are agreeing to abide by the rules and be subject to the whims of the private entity on whose “sole property” you are now “standing” / shopping.
In that private world Amazon, and by extension Bezos, not only play god, they are god.
To illustrate this fact let’s say you have a 7 year-old child that loves a certain children’s character and you want to buy a book that has “pop-up” cut-outs to entertain and delight. And this exact item can be found via “search”.
Naturally, you type in the name of the book or character and perhaps add “pop-up”. What shows up in the “search” results is exactly what you are looking for. It’s the precise item and it looks exactly as you had hoped. Then you look at the price. $50. Hmmm that’s a little high you think. With a little further research you find out that the “MSRP” for this item, a.k.a. the list price is $30 which seems a bit odd.
You keep trying to search and click any link on the site that will lead you to the same item at a more reasonable price – but that is only available “used” and you will not purchase a used item for your child!
In the end you rationalize, it must be a very rare item to have such a high price, and since the Amazon search results “must be scientific” there are apparently no lower priced copies available. So you buy it.
This scenario was repeated hundreds if not thousands of times for this one product over a period of several months. And likely was repeated millions of times over a period of years across thousand, if not millions of items. So what?
The search is rigged, that’s what. How do I know? The person that related this story was the seller, in 2014, of over 1000 copies of the item at $50. He did not create this fraud, merely piggybacked on what Amazon itself had set up. Only they have control of the search results.
What’s the big deal you say, after all there were no cheaper units available so it is just “surge pricing”; supply and demand, right?
Wrong. There was, after all, another listing of the same item, expertly hidden by Amazon, where only a hacker or software expert could find it. On that listing, for those that Amazon chose not to swindle, was the exact same item for the standard, heavily discounted, price of $16 or nearly 50% off the list or MSRP. You see, the result is, regardless of who is selling the item, Amazon earns triple (triple the fees) when the price is higher, as in this example.
This is not an isolated “mistake”. Many who have experience working inside the Amazon system have seen literally thousands of similar examples all tied to this “malfunctioning” search engine.
What’s more a calculation of the possible financial benefits during the time in question amounted to nearly the entire reported net profit of the entire company. It was common knowledge that the company was reporting little or no net profit during many years, even as it remained a darling of stockholders.
And if any one would bring such a specific case to Amazon’s attention? Naturally they would blame the seller, software issues, the moon and the stars, anything but admit that they use every inch of their private real estate for one purpose and one purpose only, to maximize the amount of money that ends us in their accounts.
And many who are reading this still don’t get it. “Why not?” It’s capitalism after all! To the victor go the spoils! Hail Ceasar! Heil Hitler. It’s your internet. Not theirs.
Consensus Building Rapidly Against the Business Models of Internet Giants
Earlier this week, Amnesty International, a non-governmental organization from the UK, called Google and Facebook’s practices of omnipresent surveillance on people around the world an “assault on privacy.” The organization, which focuses on human rights, recently released a report outlining how these two major tech companies hold too much power and should change their business models to stop infringing on users’ personal information.
Amnesty International’s accusations may seem extreme, but that does not mean that they are inaccurate. While Google and Facebook might appear to be free websites, the reality is that you pay for their services with your data. Whenever you search for something, you feed the sites information—information that they can sell, manipulate, market, or use for a countless number of other things, some of them perhaps unethical.
The upside is that data is cheap, and therefore these websites are not about to start charging you. The downside, however, is that there are really no limits to how tech juggernauts like Google or Facebook (or Apple, or Amazon, or Microsoft for that matter) use the data you provide them. No concrete laws in the United States monitor these companies’ use of data, and given that the Internet was built as a place of free-flowing information, there are no internal boundaries that stop these websites from taking full, unrestricted advantage of your information.
This is not the first time that Facebook and Google have been called out for issues regarding privacy and cyber-ethics. Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg has found himself before Congress on more than one occasion recently. Ever since it became known that Cambridge Analytica used web data to falsely advertise on Facebook during the 2016 elections, the social network’s surveillance tactics have been in question.
Benign Monarchs? Not Likely.
As for Google, the website practically has a monopoly on web-searches across the world. The search engine accounts for 90% of the Internet searches on Earth, and it is not always transparent about what it does with the resulting data. With such huge numbers, though, Google can afford to distribute your extensive information to just about anyone—even government organizations or institutions with malintent.
The two companies usually respond to these kinds of accusations with vague optimism about current and future cyber-safety. Google claims to have changed its model within the last year, making the site more user-friendly and giving its patrons more control. Meanwhile, Facebook has largely stood its ground when it comes to online freedom. Zuckerberg and other Facebook officials have suggested that they will heighten security, but they simultaneously stand by that censorship on any scale is constrictive and antithetical to the website’s intent.
Facebook also owns Instagram, Messenger, WhatsApp, and several other websites/apps that are used across borders, making the issue a conglomerate and worldly one. Although they are both American companies by origin, both Facebook and Google are international entities. Thus, creating laws around their practices is a complicated and culturally sensitive process.
At the same time, though, these enterprises have been going unchecked and unchallenged for well over a decade now. When they started, the digital world was much smaller and very different than it is now. Technology has changed, and so has the world— now the rules that govern it must follow suit.
Google was fined 1.7 billion dollars (1.5 Billion Euros) for online advertising antitrust violations. This is the third fine from European authorities since 2017. The fines, along with those against other big tech firms, have established the European Union as the most consequential oversight body in policing internet tech firms that are seen as having too much power.
Europe is a leader in taking a stronger approach to reigning in firms such as Amazon, Facebook and Google (Alphabet). A broad consensus holds that these huge tech behemoths represent a danger to fair competition.
“Google has cemented its dominance in online search adverts and shielded itself from competitive pressure by imposing anticompetitive contractual restrictions on third-party websites, this is illegal under E.U. antitrust rules.”
Margrethe Vestager, Europe’s top antitrust watchdog
A variety of infractions have been committed by Google in the past couple years. They were fined for misusing their Android ownership to undercut rivals. Google was also fined for attaching an increased amount of text ads to third party companies who used the Google search bar.
The internet search leader bundled its ad platform within the third party custom search engines. This practice undercut Microsoft, Yahoo, and other digital advertising companies.
European authorities have been more aggressive with tech companies, demanding improved privacy, transparency, and even copyright regulations. Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager has fined Google over 3 billion dollars since 2017. Alphabet/Google owes a total of 8.2 Euros (9.3 billion dollars). Google hasn’t paid the fines yet, and plans to appeal. Google stock is up 17 percent in 2019.
In the U.S., Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democratic candidate for President in 2020 said that Facebook, Google, Amazon and Apple should be broken up due to various antitrust issues.
